[Osmf-talk] OpenStreetMap in UK's New Scientist
prsandham at yahoo.co.uk
Wed Dec 9 22:12:47 UTC 2009
On 09/12/09 20:24, paul sandham wrote:
> I am happy to ask the flickr users for permission for this
> image to be used in an OSM media pack? With attribution of course;))
I would suggest you also need model release forms from everyone featuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
in the photo.
Thanks for pointing this out Gerv. I have assumed that because OSM would not in this instance be using any images for commercial cases. The usage/publication of these images would be for editorial purposes i.e as parts of a media pack. Using flickr (or similar) images with attribution and consent of the photographer, means that there should be no requirement for model release under UK or US privacy laws. If anyone here is aware of any legal obstacles, relevant precedence in other countries then I would not be able to help, please advise us.
One thing that this did make me think of though was that we would have to ask for and receive confirmation in writing from the photographer/source of the image that they were the photographer / source / owner of the image in question. OSM as publisher of any image would have to show that all reasonable due diligence was taken with regard to the ownership.
One other and rather obvious approach to ensuring compliance with privacy laws, would be simply to ensure that nobody in any image is identifiable. This is a bit belt and braces as there is already precedent such as the DiCorcia case which although it was won on statute of limitation (common law that defines how much time can pass before proceedings can no longer be brought / lawsuits filed) and the fact that the image was "creative" even though DiCorcia sold it for a lot of money. Cases such as this one would indicate that there should - particularly if we follow the above - be very little chance of any filesuits.
To summarise as the images would be part of a media pack and therefore used for editorial - New Scientist - purposes, that the purpose of publication would not be commercial and that none of the images would have "identifiable" images of individuals means that OSM should be fine.
Frederik, I take your point with regard to items/objects/logos being in the image that might in themselves infringe copyright i.e. Garmin or images of non-OSM maps.
I will do some delving when back at home this weekend and create a sample collection (12 - 18 images) on flickr to see if there is concensus from the group as to whether it is suitable or not.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk